My next door neighbor was really into the Pokemon trading cards. I never really liked them (played Magic myself), but he spent all his money on buying more and more cards. Now, his family was super religious, to the point where the mom home-schooled them to keep them away from the devil that was public school.

Anyway, he comes over one day with this box, and he's just bawling his eyes out. I asked him what's wrong and he says "My sister and I got in a big fight. She went on the internet and found this article proving that Pokemon were a creation by the devil to distract kids from God. My mom is making me give away all my cards!" I asked him what he wanted me to do and he just yells "get rid of them I don't care!" and throws the box down and runs home. Well I took the box, brought it down to the trading card store a few days later and ended up selling the lot for about $700 (this was back when those holo ones could go for $100 each). I was like 12-13 at the time so that was a shiat-ton of money.

Went to his house the next day and handed him $400 in cash and told him to go buy a Playstation 2. I took mine and bought an Xbox. He bought the sports/racing/non-violent games, and I took care of the gory, M-rated games. Worked out well for both of us.

Okay, people, calm down. It was a mildly interesting article about the mythological archetypes that the human psyche has carried with it through the ages, and how that translates to young psychological development. Although the author may or may not be a Christian, fundie, crazy person or all three in combination, it really wasn't much of a religious tract, more of a comparative religious tract.

Dora is annoying because the way the actor voices her it's LIKE SHE'S SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.

Generally, I don't think the author was taking himself too seriously. He gets to the role of fox imagery in asian religions later in the article and does a simple comparison.

I'm reminded of the conversation between Enoch Root and Randy Waterhouse in Cryptonomicon where Enoch is laying out the difference between Mars and Minerva as representations of human behavior and how all "gods" have analogs in different cultures because they are based on universal aspects of humanity and nature. I'd guess that anywhere an agrarian culture resides within fox habitat, foxes would be perceived negatively as cunning thieves because they can and do prey upon small domesticated animals (poultries, rabbits, etc) in spite of the best efforts to prevent it. They're ability to overcome obstacles that humans put in their way may be viewed as supernatural.

jonny_q:When all you can think about is religion-hating, everything looks like a religious rant even if it's not intended that way.

This. I'm a militant teapot spotter, and this article was worth reading. It's not a fundie rant. Indeed, I think it could be used to troll fundies. The only trollicious thing about it is the title. But then the point of a title is to get people to read the article.

Guys, If you're offended by this article, read it again, slower this time.

I mean, have you ever really heard or listened to Diamanda Galas, Nina Hagen, Spooky Tooth, Ludichrist, Celtic Frost, or Christian Death? (the latter few painfully obviously formed to give morons like that a heart attack anyway)

Yes. Celtic Frost, in particular, is classic, canonical extreme/progressive metal. At least as influential as Venom, musically, if not (pop-)culturally....

For those that didn't read the article, it was a fairly light-hearted exploration of the mythological background of the demonic or trickster fox character, and speculations on the morality presented in the show.

I thought it was, like many such explorations, taking things a bit too deep. But it was still entertaining and thoughtful. If you couldn't make it to the end, the author's ending point was that in Dora the Explorer, even the archetypal "bad" characters get a second chance and are seen somewhat sympathetically. He compares this to the early christianity taught by Origen and the biblical imperative of loving even one's enemies, and points out that modern christians might make a better world and a better life if they took those simple morals more seriously.

It wasn't some clueless fundie screaming about demons and claiming that kids' shows and pop culture are going to put our children on a path to hell.

The comments, however, are comedy gold, a heady mix of arrogance and idiocy. About a third of them are the clueless and paranoid christians who didn't even understand the author's point, but go on bashing kids' shows and pop culture and Disney, and generally make a laughingstock out of themselves and their fellow christians. Another third or so are arrogant smart asses who ALSO didn't read the article, and assume it really was about kids' shows being evil (much like many of you farkers).

I thought it was a fun read with a good message...which of course on the internet, means it's just more fodder to be thoughtlessly mocked by clueless dumbasses of all kinds and beliefs, who can't even be bothered to read for five minutes before they open their idiot-holes.

I think the fact that you can easily map the plot points and themes of a saturday morning cartoon to Christian mythology is probably more revealing regarding the origins of Christian mythology than it is indicative of anything particularly interesting regarding the cartoon.

roc6783:I feel bad for having clicked and read any of that garbage. That being said, when my daughter was born, i told my wife that she will not even know Dora is a thing until she starts interacting with other kids. 6+ months on and I am still winning that battle.

//Still have a sneaking suspicion that my wife is better at picking battles than I am though.

I lasted most of 2 years. I even watched the NEWS in the morning while getting ready for work. Now he's 3 and I have lost the battle and the war. I haven't gotten my morning news and traffic anywhere but AM radio in the car in months. We were reading a book about zoos last night at bedtime and this was his narrative:

Sad thing is, I would normally swear an article like that was satire, except that I know for a fact certain evangelicals take it to that level of insanity with total, serious conviction.

When I was a kid, me and my brother had to throw away all of our He-Man and Thundercat toys after our parents were made aware that said shows promote witchcraft. As a rule of thumb (for evangelicals), "witchcraft" was any sort of supernatural power that was explicitly stated as coming from our Lord God.

I feel bad for having clicked and read any of that garbage. That being said, when my daughter was born, i told my wife that she will not even know Dora is a thing until she starts interacting with other kids. 6+ months on and I am still winning that battle.

//Still have a sneaking suspicion that my wife is better at picking battles than I am though.

My friends' daughter is a Dora The Explorer fanatic and is generally watching it when I come over for dinner or to hang out. Last time she was watching it I said, "If you ever are hiking and come across a pit full of six giant pythons like Dora just did, you probably shouldn't befriend them."

That got the dagger glare. Three year old's dagger glares cut deep, I tell you what.

Also, You know what? The creators of "Dora" probably made Swiper a fox in the first place because a fox in our culture and mythology is considered sneaky, mischievous, clever, harmful but not evil, a sort of of wily being to watch out for but easily dispatched (an animal, after all). Get it?Now, why might a fox have obtained such cultural characteristics? Could it be because of eons of mythology relating the fox to a demon? Does the analysis within this article now make sense to the dimwitted among you? No? Well, I tried.The author is in no way trying to state that "Dora" is evil and anti-Christian. He does not say either that Swiper is somehow meant to trick children into devil-worship. In fact, he seems to imply that if we consider Swiper a demon character, a valuable lesson is taught to children: "the redeeming quality of all life" !!!Instead, it seems most of the commentators have skipped to the last paragraph, read just the sentence, "perhaps children might see that such "demonic" presences are not absolutely evil" and went into some sort of religious panic, or conversely decided to mock the above.The article is just a (brilliant) literary analysis applied to a children's show most of us would not consider worthy of literary analysis, and is thus "funny" or clever. It is a tongue-in-cheek academic exercise.The responses to this article however, are largely the product of drooling literalists with poor reading comprehension skills and a tenuous grasp of theology. In short, as I've presented in my previous comment, I weep for humanity.

My three cents: This is a clever and somewhat tongue-in-cheek analysis that so many people have misunderstood it saddens me. Literary analysis is subjective, may always be questioned, dissected, or expanded upon; however, in the comments I see only confused condemnation. Let me discuss the problems with a few examples. "You religious zealots!..." Retort: what has the author said that makes him seem a "religious zealot?" In his analysis, he never claims to know the absolute truth, to preach it, or to link it with any particular religion; rather, he considers established concepts from many diverse cultures and religions in his reading of "Dora." "There is clearly too much thought into such a simple concept." Retort: you could say the same of any critical work, as literary criticism is at its core about giving thought to seemingly simple concepts. Further, the true intention of the author is not up for debate; it is as much the reader's understanding as the author's that imbues a work with its true value. I could write an essay on the topics I'm trying to raise, but I lack the patience. The bottom line is that I am saddened by the idiocy of the authors of the comments and of those who agree with them, and shocked by the quantity of the above. No one seems to get it, and that poses a problem far beyond the scope of this article, as this kind of flawed thinking will extend itself to much more serious debates of religion and literature in culture. If the majority of netizens cannot comprehend an analysis of literary themes in a simple children's cartoon, what hope do they have of ever understanding something as complex as the Bible, or of contributing meaningfully to important cultural debates (abortion, or homosexuality, for example, as two charged items at the intersection of religion and culture). And finally, this comment: "NOT TO SOUND DUMB__-so should we let our children watch it yes or no????___ "Retort: You do sound dumb, and you are dumb, and the fact that you have control over the education of your children is beyond frightening. You know who gets it, though? Commenter "monte." His comment is this: "Bravo. This piece, to me, is what PopMatters is all about. It's got an ostensibly silly premise, and seems readable initially just for its humor, but in fact it becomes quite thought-provoking, as well. I bitterly wish I'd written it. Well done." Congratulations then, monte. You alone seem humanity's saving grace.

Jim_Callahan:I think the fact that you can easily map the plot points and themes of a saturday morning cartoon to Christian mythology is probably more revealing regarding the origins of Christian mythology than it is indicative of anything particularly interesting regarding the cartoon.

Like I said, it would have been a passingly interesting treatise (for all three of us who find such things moderately interesting) on repeating themes and motifs in mythology and folklore. I've seen similar theories in religious studies before. It's not unusual; Joseph Campbell did it already, and much better and more entertainingly.

That this fool thinks there's anything even remotely "demonic" about it is just this year's attempt to create a panic about children's television. methinks.

The author claims to be "a professor and scholar of the history of Christianity". Does that mean that he's a Christian? No, you morons!

The article is titled "Swiper, No Swiping!": The Demonology of Dora the Explorer. Does that mean that the author believes in demons and demon possession? No, you morons!

For the morons who didn't read the article but assumed that it was WND-style derp:"It's not clear whether the creators of Dora the Explorer were thinking about this rich demonological tradition when they created Swiper -- they did not need to. The image of the fox-demon has molded our religious consciousness for centuries."

If you actually read the article and think that the author is some kind of crazy religious nut, you're either a complete moron or functionally illiterate.

crazyone33:As someone with three under 6 (2 years apart), most of the shows I have sen mentioned are watchable; personally, I would rather get punched in the balls than watch The Fresh Beat Band. That is about the only show I absolutely refuse to let my kids watch. There are very few other shows for their ages that I can't watch.

However, I have yet to see a show for their cousins on Disney (ages 10-15) that doesn't want me to run screaming from the room. They are God-awful and I will gladly put up with Caillou, Max and Ruby, or any of the Disney Jr offerings before I will watch that crap.

I feel your pain...my nephews are in the tween phase, and insist on watching The Suite Life, Wizard of Waverly Place, and a few other similar shows I can't recall the name of off hand. I try to remember that they're kids shows and I probably watched annoying stuff when I was little...but damn, those shows make my brain bleed. What kind of "acting" do you call that?

As someone with three under 6 (2 years apart), most of the shows I have sen mentioned are watchable; personally, I would rather get punched in the balls than watch The Fresh Beat Band. That is about the only show I absolutely refuse to let my kids watch. There are very few other shows for their ages that I can't watch.

However, I have yet to see a show for their cousins on Disney (ages 10-15) that doesn't want me to run screaming from the room. They are God-awful and I will gladly put up with Caillou, Max and Ruby, or any of the Disney Jr offerings before I will watch that crap.

I mean, have you ever really heard or listened to Diamanda Galas, Nina Hagen, Spooky Tooth, Ludichrist, Celtic Frost, or Christian Death? (the latter few painfully obviously formed to give morons like that a heart attack anyway)

Yes. Celtic Frost, in particular, is classic, canonical extreme/progressive metal. At least as influential as Venom, musically, if not (pop-)culturally....

I'm sure. But the point was they didn't have a big following. The guys in the video had to dig deep to find the most outrageous stuff they could find.

Holy Crap, man. My parents lived by that shiat when I was a kid. I'll see you that one and raise you a...

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

My condolences. Did they ever become sane?

I have cool parents who are still sane. But my best friend's mom wouldn't let him come over any more after she found out I had a Parker Bros Ouija board. Although she still let me spend the weekend at their place, where we went to church on Sunday. Lol, I wonder if she realizes how much help she provided on my journey to non-belief.

Wait until you're exposed to the likes of Max and Ruby or Caillou, though.*shudder*

My wife was a nanny for 3 kids before we decided to have our own, and the one she couldn't stand was Wonderpets.

//Also, from the DVDs that the kids she watched, I found out that George Carlin narrated the Thomas the Train shows. Confused the hell out of me when I was at their house while it was playing in the background. I did one of those, "Is that...no...but it really sound like him...no it can't be...yep, it totally is him."

He even referenced it in a bit on one of his albums.

Something about how kids suck or aren't special, and he topped it with "And I'm Mr. Conductor. I should know".

bubo_sibiricus:jonny_q: When all you can think about is religion-hating, everything looks like a religious rant even if it's not intended that way.

This. I'm a militant teapot spotter, and this article was worth reading. It's not a fundie rant. Indeed, I think it could be used to troll fundies. The only trollicious thing about it is the title. But then the point of a title is to get people to read the article.

Guys, If you're offended by this article, read it again, slower this time.

The comments were my favorite part.....much like the comments here, there was just so much cluelessness, from both the christians and the chrisitian bashers.

/Atheist. Thought the article was kind of cool, and wouldn't mind if more christians (and non-christians) were as thoughtful as the writer.

Flakeloaf:jonny_q: Flakeloaf: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a strawman for the ficitious bogeyman you've invented.

When all you can think about is religion-hating, everything looks like a religious rant even if it's not intended that way.

The argument asserts the correctness of Christian dogma, presumes the existence of demons, then declares a Dora character to be representative of the tradition in which demons have historically been portrayed in works of mythology. A disbelief in demons reduces the article to "In the history of human storytelling, there have been many bad guys. Swiper is one of them."

jonny_q:Flakeloaf: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a strawman for the ficitious bogeyman you've invented.

When all you can think about is religion-hating, everything looks like a religious rant even if it's not intended that way.

The argument asserts the correctness of Christian dogma, presumes the existence of demons, then declares a Dora character to be representative of the tradition in which demons have historically been portrayed in works of mythology. A disbelief in demons reduces the article to "In the history of human storytelling, there have been many bad guys. Swiper is one of them."

kid_icarus:Raug the Dwarf: kid_icarus: TFA so much reminds me of this...

[i76.photobucket.com image 300x300]

/anyone else have their childhood ruined by this garbage?

Holy Crap, man. My parents lived by that shiat when I was a kid. I'll see you that one and raise you a...

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

I don't remember exactly, but our church showed some video similar to that that "exposed" the demonic reality of rock n' roll. The video, being a bit outdated (much like the middle-aged church people screening it) featured heavy metal from the 80s (we were into the 90s by this point).

I bet it was the same one. That video, they drug out some of the most inane, underground crap and said "Look how evil it is!!!" Then pointed to crap like Prince and Whitney Houston and said, "Look they're using sex to sell records...that's evil too!"

I mean, have you ever really heard or listened to Diamanda Galas, Nina Hagen, Spooky Tooth, Ludichrist, Celtic Frost, or Christian Death? (the latter few painfully obviously formed to give morons like that a heart attack anyway)

Granted, they still had classics like AC/DC, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Venom, etc. too, but come on.I used to watch the video for the soundtrack. Is that bad?

Holy Crap, man. My parents lived by that shiat when I was a kid. I'll see you that one and raise you a...

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

I don't remember exactly, but our church showed some video similar to that that "exposed" the demonic reality of rock n' roll. The video, being a bit outdated (much like the middle-aged church people screening it) featured heavy metal from the 80s (we were into the 90s by this point).

Elmer Fudd used to blast Daffy's duckbill right off his head at point blank range with a (sawed-off?) shotgun when I was a kid. So far it has only resulted in two mass-murder sprees by yours truly. I'd say the collateral damage is well within the acceptable limits.

FitzShivering:Pretty easy to pick out who didn't read the article. There's no herp-a-derp fundy stuff in there. It's actually halfway interesting, and the author even admits it may not be conscious intent to do anything with "demons." Not seeing any, "OMG DORA IS CAVORTING WITH DEMONS MAKE UR CHILDREN STOP"

While what you say is absolutely true, and in the end the point is "be nice and forgive everybody", the author did a pretty good job of burying his lead, and the headline didn't help. Of course, that alone should have tipped people off. Or maybe people haven't read enough real "herp-a-derp fundy stuff". Those kind of articles generally start with their alarmist crazy proposition and then go to the crazy supporting points. If this were that kind of article it would have been more like:"Children's show "Dora" during is teaching toddlers to cavort with demons. 1. Dora practices magic incantations by..." etc. etc.

FitzShivering:Pretty easy to pick out who didn't read the article. There's no herp-a-derp fundy stuff in there. It's actually halfway interesting, and the author even admits it may not be conscious intent to do anything with "demons." Not seeing any, "OMG DORA IS CAVORTING WITH DEMONS MAKE UR CHILDREN STOP"

But the author is the one who made the jump from "innocent cartoon" to "is that fox a DEMON?"

People with minds that aren't full of superstitious crap like "fox-demons" don't do things like that.

Oh, there's a rich historical tradition of foxes being seen as demonic? You mean from times when people were even dumber than they are today? THIS MUST MEAN SOMETHING.

Civchic:roc6783: I feel bad for having clicked and read any of that garbage. That being said, when my daughter was born, i told my wife that she will not even know Dora is a thing until she starts interacting with other kids. 6+ months on and I am still winning that battle.

//Still have a sneaking suspicion that my wife is better at picking battles than I am though.

I lasted most of 2 years. I even watched the NEWS in the morning while getting ready for work. Now he's 3 and I have lost the battle and the war. I haven't gotten my morning news and traffic anywhere but AM radio in the car in months. We were reading a book about zoos last night at bedtime and this was his narrative:

Pretty easy to pick out who didn't read the article. There's no herp-a-derp fundy stuff in there. It's actually halfway interesting, and the author even admits it may not be conscious intent to do anything with "demons." Not seeing any, "OMG DORA IS CAVORTING WITH DEMONS MAKE UR CHILDREN STOP"

Latinwolf:kid_icarus: Sad thing is, I would normally swear an article like that was satire, except that I know for a fact certain evangelicals take it to that level of insanity with total, serious conviction.

When I was a kid, me and my brother had to throw away all of our He-Man and Thundercat toys after our parents were made aware that said shows promote witchcraft. As a rule of thumb (for evangelicals), "witchcraft" was any sort of supernatural power that was explicitly stated as coming from our Lord God.

I think you meant "any sort of supernatural power that was explicitly stated as not coming from our Lord God".

bubo_sibiricus:jonny_q: When all you can think about is religion-hating, everything looks like a religious rant even if it's not intended that way.

This. I'm a militant teapot spotter, and this article was worth reading. It's not a fundie rant. Indeed, I think it could be used to troll fundies. The only trollicious thing about it is the title. But then the point of a title is to get people to read the article.

Guys, If you're offended by this article, read it again, slower this time.

This. Makes you wonder if the geniuses commenting on it actually read the piece or went all spittle spraying based on the headline.

MacWizard:The author of the article spent wa-a-a-a-y more time considering the ramifications, origin, motivations and metaphysical ramifications of Swiper than the people who created the character. You'd think that "hidden demonology" would require someone to be hiding it.

FTA: "We've had this discussion with advisors who wanted us to get into the motivation behind Swiper's bad behavior. We decided that it's cleaner without it. Similar to villains in fairy tales, we don't get into the why."

The redemption themes are definitely there. Possibly even Christian ones: TFA doesn't mention the Xmas special, but the entire plot is that Swiper swipes on Christmas Eve, earning himself a place on Santa's Naughty List. Dora and Boots take Swiper on adventures mandated by Santa as a prerequisite for Swiper's removal from said list. They visit Christmases past, present and future using a time-traveling cloak they get from Grumpy Old Troll.

/Spoiler: Swiper sees the pain his swiping causes the others and agrees not to swipe on Christmas//Interesting: In the future (when they're all "big kids"), nobody has any nice things. The incantation of "Swiper, no swiping" (which Present!Swiper invokes against his own future self) doesn't work anymore, explicitly because once Swiper got on the Naughty List he didn't care anymore.

Famous Thamas:Dora was probably Rule 34'd the day she was created. Do your self a favor and do a google image search with safe search off.

CSB: That was how my wife learned of the existence of Rule 34. She makes Velcro cards for our autistic daughter to use to choose things, like shows, and she's a fan of Dora, so Mrs. Anomaly GIS's Dora the Explorer, ... what has been seen cannot be unseen apparently.

Our kids are on the same wavelength. Looney Toons is just awesome, hands down. But yeah, Phineas and Ferb he's not into yet. I do like that one show (Little Einsteins?) where they have to "pat pat pat pat" their knees to get their rocketship to fly. They play some cool classical music on that one.

I HATE Mike the Knight. Caillou may be whiny but Mike is a little jerk.

cherryl taggart:One of my sons is now 10, and still has a large Dora doll that hangs out in his room. Which he will promptly use as a weapon if anyone disses her. And he really likes girls with the same features, dark hair, olive skin, brown eyes. I'm thinking there's going to be a little Latina diversity in my family tree in a few years. Does this mean the baby Jebus is going to cry?

You should get him a Dora piñata and convert it into Murderface for him:

cherryl taggart:One of my sons is now 10, and still has a large Dora doll that hangs out in his room. Which he will promptly use as a weapon if anyone disses her. And he really likes girls with the same features, dark hair, olive skin, brown eyes. I'm thinking there's going to be a little Latina diversity in my family tree in a few years. Does this mean the baby Jebus is going to cry?

...and the insidious plot behind Dora the Explorer is revealed at last.

The author of the article spent wa-a-a-a-y more time considering the ramifications, origin, motivations and metaphysical ramifications of Swiper than the people who created the character. You'd think that "hidden demonology" would require someone to be hiding it.

FTA: "We've had this discussion with advisors who wanted us to get into the motivation behind Swiper's bad behavior. We decided that it's cleaner without it. Similar to villains in fairy tales, we don't get into the why."

It's animated and the characters are the children of the original puppets. I don't much remember Mr Rodgers but it teaches little life lessons for2-4 y/os. Patience, taking turns, being helpful that sort of thing. It even helped with the potty training.

jayhawk88:roc6783: I feel bad for having clicked and read any of that garbage. That being said, when my daughter was born, i told my wife that she will not even know Dora is a thing until she starts interacting with other kids. 6+ months on and I am still winning that battle.

//Still have a sneaking suspicion that my wife is better at picking battles than I am though.

Here's the thing: As far as kid's shows go, Dora is like middle of the road annoying. It's repetitiveness makes it easy to tune out.

Wait until you're exposed to the likes of Max and Ruby or Caillou, though.*shudder*

To me, a professor and scholar of the history of Christianity, I saw this problem-solving strategy of dealing with Swiper within a larger, historical contest. He is an archetypal image of the diabolical fox-spirit in the history of religions. The words to ward him off are similar in pattern to spells or exorcistic formulae used to ward off evil spirits throughout history. And not only may children be learning how best to deal with the demonic, but they're doing so in a very sophisticated way. For Dora does not completely cast out her demon, but rather allows for its redemption.

So what you're telling me, is that religion and children's shows have comparable levels of simplicity in their imagery?

Go f*cking figure.

Additionally, three is a pretty magic number in regards to psychologically cementing a concept into a brain with repetition, even for adults. This is quite possibly in the top five dumbest, yet well written, things I've ever read.

If you have Amazon Prime, you have to watch The Magic Stick episode. The first 3 minutes or so are worthless, but then Dora and Boots find a "magic stick" that they have to tug mightily on to remove from a rock. When they succeed, they are bathed in a white, sparkling light from above. Animals appear and celebrate as both Dora and Boots cling to the stick, and generally fawn over it (it's worth noting that Boots chooses to carry the stick through the entire journey, rather than put the stick safely in Backpack, which is what they generally will do with valuable objects). But wait! The Magic Stick must be allowed to "do it's trick", which can only be accomplished from the "highest hill".

Things proceed normally for another 12-15 minutes, though The Magic Stick proves useful in solving almost any problem for the duo. Finally we reach the end (climax?), where both Dora and Boots insert The Magic Stick into the Highest Hill, which is completely barren. But nothing happens! No, a chant must be recited: at which point the white sparkles again erupt from the top of The Magic Stick, and the Highest Hill is covered in rich greenery and flowers in their wake. Finally, The Magic Stick rises into the air; Dora and Boots grab on, and The Magic Stick flies them around the land. They embrace when they land, so joyous are they, and Dora celebrates by putting one of the flowers created by The Magic Stick in her hair.

I want it to be satire, but let's face it, this is how religion came about in the first place: Overthinking crap until an intricate series of utterly fabricated explanations start to sound more and more plausible as each mental construct reinforces the next in an enless series of "So if X, then Y must be so, and if Y must be so, then..." statements.

And that's how you end up with the devil in Dora. Which also sounds like a great name for a modernized classic porno.

hdhale:Foxes are crafty, sneaky in the real world and in ancient and modern lore.

Satan is crafty, sneaky in the Bible and some would say in the real world.

Author draws obvious parallels.

Why is this even an article?

Welcome to Fark?

TrainingWheelsNeeded:roc6783: I feel bad for having clicked and read any of that garbage. That being said, when my daughter was born, i told my wife that she will not even know Dora is a thing until she starts interacting with other kids. 6+ months on and I am still winning that battle.

//Still have a sneaking suspicion that my wife is better at picking battles than I am though.

you will lose. you will soon be able moving to the rhythm of a little song with only three words, "I'm The Map!

I doubt it as my wife seems to dislike it as much as I do, but I am sure there is some other horrifyingly stupid kids things she will love that I will hate.

FTFA: If we could get children to treat all such "old enemies" with compassion and understanding, they might indeed understand one of the central tenants of the Christian tradition, unfortunately lost by the most "pious" among us: "Love thy enemy." Then, perhaps, we adults may all learn from our children to do the same to our foes, whether we conceive of them as demonic or not.

Ok. That whole article to close with those two sentences? Was Dora really the vehicle necessary to reach that conclusion?Methinks said professor may be dealing with a few demons himself.